The first and second definitions of democracy
in Webster's dictionary are:1: "a government by the people;
esp : rule of the majority -
2: a government in which the supreme power is held by the people."

Now,
this sounds very appealing to people who are interested in freedom
and justice for all. Indeed, it is a great a concept, one held
by the majority of enlightened cultures that have appeared in
the past 2,500 or so years. Unfortunately, life has not been so
utopian, and in many places and eras, power has been held by what
have been called tyrants and despots, feudal lords and egomaniacs
who sat in power because of "divine right to rule."
Contrary to such a flowery notion, most of these "leaders"
came into power through physical force and an array of atrocities.
This trend continues to this day in too many parts of the world,
with banana-republican dictators scattered here and there like
so many weeds. In the popular version of history, the righteous
human struggle has been to destroy these autocracies and replace
them with the ever-liberating "democracy," so that civil
rights will be mandated and enforced, and all people will have
a chance to lead a decent life.

This
urge to create some sort of governing body and principle that
will provide for the participation of individuals and hoi polloi
in their own destinies is indeed a noble and righteous one. It
is absolutely on the right track, and it has been supported throughout
the ages by the most exalted thinkers that this planet has produced.
There can be no argument there. So, knowing this, these venerated
minds have consistently set about first planning such a government
and then finding a way to execute it.

Democracy
is Ideal and Idealistic Thus was born the idea of democratic government,
which calls for a majority of people to vote on how they wish
to be treated rather than having it decided for them. In this
day and age, the common perception of such a democratic government
is of a structure that has a variety of levels from local to state
to federal. On the local level, there can be boards of supervisors,
boards of education, boards of selectmen, etc. On the state level,
there can be legislatures and representatives. On the federal
level, there can be a parliament, senate and/or house of representatives.
These divisions are set up to share the power so that no one aspect
becomes out of balance, so that no one individual or group holds
the reigns for the rest and can make decisions for the whole.
This is the ideal of this governing structure, and on paper it
may be virtuous. But in real life, because of a tendency in human
nature, it often happens that this noble ideal becomes warped
and distorted such that the governing structure turns out to resemble
what it was designed to replace.

The
Needs of the Few or the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many? When
a small group of individuals wields a large portion of power and
dictates the lives of the majority, it is called an "oligarchy."
According to Webster's, oligarchy is "a government in which
power is in the hands of a few." To those who have been educated
to believe in the ideal of a democratic government, i.e., one
that ostensibly spreads the power around even to the smallest
"little person," the idea of an oligarchy seems abhorrent
and straight out of the Dark Ages. After all, "all men are
created equal," so how dare anyone else attempt to dictate
how someone should or shouldn't lead his or her life? Ideally,
citizens of a democracy would never allow a handful of individuals
dictate policy for the rest.

Yet,
what is held on this planet at this time to be a democratic government
is, upon inspection, in reality an oligarchy, with a small percentage
of citizens establishing and enforcing policy. Although many citizens
of so-called democratic societies may believe they are living
under a majority rule, they truly are not. In fact, in large communities,
this direct democracy would be impossible, even with the best
voting techniques and technology, because every day there are
hundreds of decisions that governing bodies face without the input
of the "common people." The sheer volume of the decisions
required to keep a governing system together is so enormous that
it is not viable to take into account the opinions of each and
every citizen of that government. So, in these systems of representative
democracy, citizens ostensibly elect people to fairly represent
their individual opinions. In truth, they have no choice. They
cannot do it themselves. Is representative democracy, then, a
truly democratic process? Not exactly, but, as they say, "Democracy
is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

Indeed,
a better question would be, is the electing of one person - usually
but not always a man - to head or lead a country or governing
body a democracy? In other words, what is so democratic about
having a president or prime minister or any other singular head
of state? Is this not the definition of at least an oligarchy,
if not an autocracy? How can one man be representative of a million
or a billion others? Indeed, he cannot, and this form of government
is not really a democracy in its highest ideal. It may attempt
to approach the mark, but it falls short.

Fortunately,
the "democratic" singular-head-of-state governing system
has generally been designed with a system of checks and balances
that carefully weighs and incorporates the opinions of others,
so the rabid and egregious abuse of power inherent in a true autocracy
is not usually found within such a system. However, even this
"democratic" system is flawed, in that there are loopholes
that do allow for a concentration of power in the hands of the
few. Paradoxically and fortunately, at the same time there are
so many vested interests, corporate juggernauts and the like,
that the top people in authority really don't have the concentrated
power that they or the citizens they supposedly represent believe
they do. What this means is that the "democratic" singular
head of state is not truly in charge, as he is constantly influenced
by aggressive self-interested outside parties.

Since
it is the case that these so-called leaders do not really have
the ability to enact either their own will or that of the people,
the question arises, "Why maintain this type of system?"
Indeed, why would a "democratic" government have a president
or prime minister in the first place? Why wouldn't it have a council
of elders, in which a larger number of people are considered heads
of state? This concept has been practiced in a variety of cultures
around the globe throughout history. To be truly democratic, this
governing system would include representatives of both genders
and all ethnicities within a given territory, regardless of class
or financial status.

Elected
Official or Egomaniac? Considering all of this, don't the offices
of prime minister, president and the like seem rather egotistical?
What is the motivation to become president, something most mothers
and fathers fantasize about for their children? Is it because
it would be in the best interest for all the people involved,
because the little chip off the old block is a fantastic visionary
whose wisdom and knowledge would vastly improve the lives of his
or her constituents? Or is it because it would make Junior, Mummy
and Daddy feel very good to have Junior be a leader of peoples?
Since Junior has hardly proven himself a great and wise leader
by the age of two, when Mummy and Daddy are already planning his
illustrious career, such ambition cannot be motivated by an altruistic
desire to save the world but by egocentricity.

In
truth, for the most part, "democratic" countries do
not elect the wisest or best qualified, as those individuals usually
do not wish to lose their privacy and be inspected under a microscope.
To become wise and gain depth of soul and mastery over life, many
people have experienced events that are not within the boundaries
of the commonly held perception of morality. Hence, they would
not be considered squeaky clean enough to pass public muster.
Unfortunately, that means that those who do pass muster are often
robotic and dull, having lived strictly according to society's
rules and laws - no great daredevils here but fearful geeks. Until
they do actually inhale (or at least admit to it), we will not
see any great visionaries in office. And until we stop esteeming
egotistical positions of power, we will not have a true democracy.
Indeed, it might be best if we established a "meritocracy,"
whereby individuals would earn a position, rather than buy or
inherit it.